I know this is a touchy topic. I would like to know what objections people have to opening up the NICS background check to everyone, not just FFL's. Basically, give everyone the ability to do a background check and require them to keep a simple log of who they sold a firearm to (and proof of the background check) in the event it is later used in a crime?

Pros
1. I would feel better about selling a gun to someone I have verified is not a criminal
2. It would preserve the right of private sellers to conduct FTF transactions in state without an FFL
3. It may keep gun shows alive and available for private persons to sell firearms at.

Cons
1. This could be construed, or later used, as a firearms registration.
2. There would be some added cost to individuals doing a FTF transaction
3. It weakens our rights and we really get nothing in return like the repeal of the '89 import ban or the'86 machinegun ban.

I throw this out there for discussion. I would like to know where others stand on this. Feel free to tell me where Universal Background Checks, in a form that I've outlined above, are really bad for us gun owners. We will need good arguments if we are going to fight this, and this is a good place for you smart people to share them.

There's too many government noses in our business now. What we really should be working on is term limits for these bozos who have figured out a way to make us pay them for a lifetime of loafing, eating the occasional rubber chicken and showing up once in a while to cast a vote. Is there an easier job on earth than being a member of Congress?

__________________
"The welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants." Albert Camus

Incrementalism is the reason I am against it. I don’t need nor can I find a better reason, IMHO. The reason we are having gun control debates in the first place is based upon a method of change. It’s a method that takes today what it can get, and waits for the next crisis. Notice that without the crisis these great ideas never come up. That describes a deviant method of operating. I am against my government leading us sheep to an imaginary idealistic utopia one crisis at a time.

I am in favor. However I would like to see any reference to the type or description of the firearm removed from the equation when using the system. It should be a check on the person not the weapon.

__________________Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday.

I would like to know which actual, not theoretical, crimes would have been prevented by universal checks and how a law requiring universal checks would not have been circumvented by someone intent on mayhem.

I would like to know which actual, not theoretical, crimes would have been prevented by universal checks and how a law requiring universal checks would not have been circumvented by someone intent on mayhem.

You want to prove the non-existence of a specific crime? That is a tall order right there.

__________________Tomorrow is the most important thing in life. Comes into us at midnight very clean. It's perfect when it arrives and it puts itself in our hands. It hopes we've learned something from yesterday.

As far as I know, there is nothing prohibiting private citizens from going to an FFL and making a transfer, thus gaining (indirect) access to the NICS system. Accordingly, if a seller would like to take the extra step to ensure that he is not selling to a prohibited person, he is welcome to so.

Opening NICS up to private citizens opens the door to more incremental encroachments on our 2A rights. Here's one path that I can imagine, just off the top of my head:
1) Open NICS up to private citizens.
2) Require that all transfers go through NICS, on the theory that "the system is already open to the public, so there's no inconvenience in making folks use it. After all, it's for the children."
3) Learn that requiring all tranfers go through NICS didn't reduce crime, because it's darn near impossible to prosecute anyone for failing to use system without full gun registration.
4) Implement full gun registration.
5) Discover that convicted felons or other prohibited persons cannot be prosecuted for failing to register firearms that they should not have had in the first place. See Haynes v. U.S., 88 S.Ct. 722 (1968).
6) Figure that since registration didn't work, clearly the gov't didn't "go far enough" on gun control.
7) Decide on the next step . . . .

I am not in favor of opening it to the public.

__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some.

You want to prove the non-existence of a specific crime? That is a tall order right there.

No, the planning would exist. The background check would have stopped it. The CT shooter, for example, failed the background check... was the incident prevented?

Has the background check ever prevented an incident?
Has failure to have background checks ever allowed an incident that would likely have been stopped if checks were in place?
Is the existing system effective in stopping crime or preventing criminal access to firearms?
Why would a universal system be better?

Obvious stuff. Real obvious.

The first question is whether or not the new regulation would help the problem. If it wouldn't, why bother?

If we give up some freedoms now, what will be left for our kids and grand kids ? The gov will chip away a little at a time until we have no rights left and the Constitution is gone.

If you don't want to fight for yourself then by God fight for your kids and grand kids. Fight hard to ensure a future of freedom for them !!!!!
Veterans have fought, died and been wounded for our rights, respect them and keep the fight going.

Im guessing that just because it was a law that you had to do background checks the only people that do them would be law abiding people. The bad guys we want to keep guns away from would still get guns. So really no help at all.

__________________
9mm Luger:

...Wildly popular all over the world, mostly in countries where people don’t carry guns, and cops don’t have to actually shoot people with theirs.

Let your state pass it. That's cool, then I know I am not selling my gun to a prohibited possessor. But the State made the requirement and it's for everyone's benefit so the state can pay for it with our state taxes.

But remember, when the bad guys come to buy my gun and I say;
"Ok Dude, $350 is cool, let's go down to our local gun shop and run the background check".

And then the bad guy says" Ummmm. yea you know, the grip has a scratch, I don't think I can go more then $150".

You can not stop crimes with laws

So there is no sale. The next night my back door is busted in and this ******* has stolen my entire gun safe then forgive me if I regret my first reaction to this completely moronic idea.

Basically, give everyone the ability to do a background check and require them to keep a simple log of who they sold a firearm to (and proof of the background check) in the event it is later used in a crime?

That sounds pretty close to making all gun owners comply with FFL requirements.

On the rare occasions that I have sold a firearm, I have sold to gun shops, precisely because I did not want to sell a firearm to a stranger and not have confidence that it was going to a legal owner for legitimate purposes. But that is my personal standard. If I found a buyer of whom I had personal knowledge, should I not have had the ability to make that sale of my personal property?

I understand what you mean, though Skans - it is hard to argue against background checks to a public with 10-second attention spans.

Let your state pass it. That's cool, then I know I am not selling my gun to a prohibited possessor. But the State made the requirement and it's for everyone's benefit so the state can pay for it with our state taxes.

But remember, when the bad guys come to buy my gun and I say;
"Ok Dude, $350 is cool, let's go down to our local gun shop and run the background check".

And then the bad guy says" Ummmm. yea you know, the grip has a scratch, I don't think I can go more then $150".

So there is no sale. The next night my back door is busted in and this ******* has stolen my entire gun safe then forgive me if I regret my first reaction to this completely moronic idea.

Why would you bring the person to your home in the first place? Bringing them to your home is the mistake... not the background check.

If background checks are to be required on personal sale of firearms, it needs to be done at the state level because the Federal Gov. is simply overstepping their power.

In part, this is what Iowa has done by issuing a "Purchasing Permit" through the County's Sherif's office. You apply, they do the checking and three days later, you pick up your permit. The permit is good for one year. To be more specific, It's called an (Iowa Annual Permit to Aquire Pistols or Revolvers). This permit is accepted by all Iowa FFL dealers for "all" legal firearms. It works just fine. ....

Be Safe !!!

__________________
'Fundamental truths' are easy to recognize because they are verified daily through simple observation and thus, require no testing.

1. I would feel better about selling a gun to someone I have verified is not a criminal

Great, then conduct your private sales at an FFL voluntarily. Don't muddle the waters with further questionable federal involvement. Secondly, people already commit straw purchases for criminals to circumvent the system, why would this be any different? Now, are you so sure you're not actually selling to a criminal?

Quote:

2. It would preserve the right of private sellers to conduct FTF transactions in state without an FFL

You sure about that? The easiest way to implement universal background checks would be to force private transactions to be done at an FFL, to utilize the system that already exists. Rather than spending additional money to alter the system to allow anyone to access it along with protecting privacy concerns. One of the recent EO's indicates the stronger possibility of implementation through FFLs rather than revamping the system.

Quote:

3. It may keep gun shows alive and available for private persons to sell firearms at.

Welcoming more intrusion for something that "may" happen? This third "pro" is really an extension of #2, which relies heavily on assumptions.

I see a list of "I hope/wish" not explicit pros associated with implementing universal background checks. The explicit cons are certainly there, expansion of federal power under the guise of "interstate commerce", as Hal pointed out is the biggest for me.

This email link is to reach site administrators for assistance, if you cannot access TFL via other means. If you are a TFL member and can access TFL, please do not use this link; instead, use the forums (like Questions, Suggestions, and Tech Support) or PM an appropriate mod or admin.

If you are experiencing difficulties posting in the Buy/Sell/Trade subforums of TFL, please read the "sticky" announcement threads at the top of the applicable subforum. If you still feel you are qualified to post in those subforums, please contact "Shane Tuttle" (the mod for that portion of TFL) via Private Message for assistance.

This email contact address is not an "Ask the Firearms Expert" service. Such emails will be ignored. If you have a firearm related question, please register and post it on the forums.